REVIEW  EXTRAORDINARY 


OF 


/ ■ , 

Man  and  the  Glacial  Period” 


BY  A MEMBER  OF 


THE  UNITED  STATES  GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY, 


WITH  ANNOTATIONS  AND 
REMARKS  THEREON 


BY 


Judge  C.  C.  BALDWIN,  LL.  D. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/reviewextraordin00mcge_0 


PROFESSOR  GEORGE  FREDERICK  WRIGHT,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
was  born  in  Whitehall,  N.  Y.,  January  22,  1838.  He  graduated  in  the 
classical  course  of  Oberlin  College  in  1859  and  from  the  Theological 
Seminary  in  1862.  From  1862  to  1871  he  was  pastor  of  a Congregational 
Church  in  Bakersfield,  Vermont.  He  there  commenced  to  give  attention 
to  the  study  of  local  geology,  getting  suggestions  from  Professor  C.  H. 
Hitchcock  and  writing  on  the  glacial  phenomena  for  the  papers. 

In  187 L he  became  pastor  at  Andover,  Mass.,  where  he  pursued  a more 
systematic  study  of  glacial  phenomena,  making  the  happy  acquaintance  of 
Professor  Asa  Gray,  of  Harvard, and  Professor  Alpheus  Hyatt,  of  the  Boston 
Society  of  Natural  History,  pursuing  a very  active  intellectual  career, 
and  as  early  as  1876  his  extended  observations  were  reported  at  length  in 
the  proceedings  of  the  Boston  Society  of  Natural  History.  WLile  thus 
engaged,  Mr.  Clarence  King  gave  him  information  of  the  terminal  moraine 
south  of  New  England.  From  that  time  on,  the  subject  was  never  out  of 
his  mind,  and  his  summer  months,  with  much  other  spare  time,  were  devo- 
ted to  it. 

He  spent  four  seasons  in  New  England,  and,  in  company  with  Professor 
H.  Carvill  Lewis,  followed  the  line  already  surveyed  by  Professors  Cook 
and  Smock  through  New  Jersey. 

These  two  were  then  invited  by  Professor  Lesley  to  survey  the  boundary 
line  in  Pennsylvania.  Their  report  isVolume  Z of  the  2d  Penn.  Geological 
Survey. 

In  1881  he  became  professor  in  the  Oberlin  Theological  Seminary. 
Shortly  after,  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  was  moved  from  Andover  to  Oberlin,  to 
be  placed  under  his  editorship,  and  he  has  been  one  of  its  editors  ever  since. 

His  duties  as  professor  have,  since  that  time,  given  him  several  months 
each  year;  all  devoted  to  glacial  studies. 

In  1882-83  he  followed  the  limits  of  the  great  ice  sheet  through  Ohio, 
Kentucky  and  Indiana.  The  results  partly  appeared  in  the  American 
Journal  of  Science  for  July,  1883,  and  a full  report  with  maps  in  Tract 
60  of  the  Western  Reserve  Historical  Society.  The  line  was  continuously 
traced  and  in  the  above  report  maps  are  given  for  the  States  and  for  every 
county  in  Ohio.  The  report  was  reprinted  verbatim  by  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania. 

In  1884  he  was  employed  by  the  United  States  Geological  Survey  to 
trace  the  line  to  the  Mississippi  River  and  to  review  the  field  in  Ohio  and 
Pennsylvania. 

The  condensed  report  of  his  work  was  issued  in  1890,  and  contained 
the  result  of  observations  made  to  that  year..  (Bull.  58, U.  S.  Qeql.  Survey.) 


4 


In  1886  he  visited  Alaska  and  camped  for  a month  by  the  Muir  Glacier. 
In  the  season  of  1887-88  he  further  explored  Ohio,  Dakota  and  other  parts 
of  the  Northwest.  In  the  fall  of  1887  he  delivered  a course  of  lectures  on 
his  hobby  before  the  Lowell  Institute  in  Boston  and  in  1888  before  the 
Peabody  Institute  of  Baltimore  and  in  Brooklyn.  In  1889  he  published 
his  great  work  “ The  Ice  Age  in  North  America  ”*  (648  pp.  8 vo.),  which 
has  met  a large  sale  in  this  country  and  abroad  and  has  made  him  famous. 

The  summer  of  1890  was  spent  in  study  of  the  lava  beds  of  the  Pacific 
coast. 

In  the  summer  of  1891  he  visited  Europe  to  there  study  the  Ice  Age  and 
Early  Man,  for  the  first  of  which  his  unprecedented  study  of  the  ice  limits 
in  the  United  States  gave  him  great  advantage,  and  he  was  warmly 
received  by  scientists  abroad. 

In  the  winter  of  1891-92  he  gave  a second  course  of  Lowell  lectures  and 
in  1892  there  was  issued  his  latest  book,  in  the  International  Scientific 
Series,  entitled  “Man  and  the  Glacial  Period”  (384  pp.  12  mo.  108  illus- 
trations and  3 maps). 

Professor  Wright  has  also  been  a generous  contributor,  mainly  upon  his 
favorite  topic,  to  the  publications  of  the  Boston  Society  of  Natural  History, 
the  American  Naturalist , the  New  Englander , American  Journal  of 
Science , the  American  Geologist , the  Nation , the  Independent , the 
Advance , the  Congregationalist,  the  Atlantic  Monthly , Scribner's  Maga- 
zine and  other  papers,  and  has  delivered  many  lectures.  He  has  also  pub- 
lished in  1881  the  “ Logic  of  Christian  Evidences  ; ” in  1882,  “ Studies  in 
Science  and  Religion,”  and  in  1884,  “The  Divine  Authority  of  the  Bible.” 
He  has  a thoughtful,  active,  discriminating  mind,  careful  in  investigation 
and  not  fast  to  conclusion.  He  is  modest  and  candid  and  has  done  an 
amount  of  active  intellectual  work  that  few  could  do  unless  their  studies 
had  been  as  largely  in  the  field. 

At  present  he  fills  the  chair  atOberlin,  of  Professor  of  “ Relations  of 
Science  and  Religion,”  with  leave  of  absence  for  several  months  each  year 
to  pursue  his  investigations.  This  professorship  was  created  for  him. 

This  notice  is  in  the  main  condensed  from  the  Popular  Science  Monthly 
for  December,  1892. 


*The  Ice  Age  in  North  America  and  its  Bearings  upon  the  Antiquity  of  Man,  by 
G.  Frederick  Wright,  D.  D.,  LL.D.,  F.  G.  S.  A.,  Professor  in  the  Oberlin  Theologi- 
cal Seminary;  Assistant  upon  the  United  States  Geological  Survey;  Author  of  “Logic 
of  Christian  Evidences,”  etc.,  with  an  appendix  on  “ The  Probable  Cause  of  Glacia- 
tion,” by  Warren  Upham,  F.  G.  S.  A.,  Assistant  upon  the  Geological  Survey  of  New 
Hampshire,  Minnesota  apd  the  United  States.  D.  Appleton  & C©.,  New  York,  1889. 


5 


REVIEW  EXTRAORDINARY. 


The  following  article  is  reprinted  verbatim  from  the  American  Anthro- 
pologist for  January,  1893. 

The  language  is  so  extraordinary  for  the  discussion  or  review  of  matters 
of  science  that  occasional  words  are  put  in  capitals  which  in  the  origi- 
nal are  in  ordinary  type. 

The  letters  in  heavy  black  type  refer  to  notes  occasionally  added  to  cor- 
rect mistakes,  where  tangible  and  definite  charges  are  made.  - 


MAN  AND  THE  GLACIAL  PERIOD. 


By  VV  J McGee. 


i. 

Wheresoever  workers  assemble,  there  IDLERS  (A)  gather  to  feast  on 
the  fruits  of  honest  toil  ; a part  are  PITIABLE  PAUPERS,  some  traf- 
fic in  UNWHOLESOME  WARES,  others  SWINDLE  THE  UN- 
AY ARY  under  the  cloak  of  honest  dealing  and  CHEAT  JUSTICE  by 
specious  pleas,  and  still  others  STEAL  AND  ROB.  Thus  the  laborer  is 
always  the  prey  of  the  idler,  and  progressive  mankind  is  handicapped  by 
the  burden  of  the  helpless  and  the  perverse. 

In  like  manner  the  workshops  and  market-places  of  science  are  haunted 
by  HARPIES  ; a part  are  the  feeble  of  mind  who  always  absorb  but  never 
produce,  some  STARVE  AND  POISON  hungry  minds  with  the  husks 
of  FICTION  and  the  lotus  of  myth,  others  FOIST  FALSEHOOD  on  the 
unwary  under  the  guise  of  science  and  HIDE  FROM  JUSTICE  behind 
shields  of  skillfully-woven  words,  and  still  others  scoff  at  reason  and  rob 
knowledge  of  its  glory.  Thus  creative  genius  is  the  prey  of  intellectual 
PARASITES,  and  the  progress  of  knowledge  is  hindered  by  the  help- 
less and  the  perverse. 

Anthropology  is  the  youngest  of  the  sciences,  and  even  yet  is  barely 
crystallized  out  of  the  original  magma  of  unsystemic  (B)  thought;  more- 


(Note  A)  Observe  the  natural  flow  of  language  and  easy  grace  of  the 
reviewer  in  this  style  of  writing. 

(Note  B)  One  of  Mr.  McGee’s  words,  not  yet  in  the  Century 
Dictionary. 


f) 


over,  anthropology  is  the  most  complex  and  obscure  among  the  subjects 
of  knowledge,  so  that  its  field  gives  but  treacherous  ground  even  for  the 
cautious  student.  Yet  the  science  of  man  is  peculiarly  attractive  to 
human  kind,  and  for  this  reason  the  untrained  are  constantly  venturing* 
upon  its  purlieus  ; and  since  each  heedless  adventurer  leads  a rabble  of 4 
followers,  it  behooves  those  who  have  at  heart  the  good  of  the  science 
not  only  to  guard  carefully  their  own  footsteps,  but  to  bell  the  blind  lead- 
ers of  the  blind.  The  blind  leaders  are  sometimes  comparatively  inno- 
cent traffickers  in  the  imaginary,  like  unto  the  SELLERS  OF  POISON 
DRINKS,  and  sometimes  the  less  pardonable  DECEIVERS  OF  THE 
UNWARY  and  DEFEATERS  OF  JUSTICE,  like  unto  COMMERCIAL 
SWINDLERS;  while  the  blind  led  are  the  dupes  of  the  one  and  the 
victims  of  the  other. 

No  question  in  anthropology  is  more  enticing  than  that  of  human 
antiquity,  and  there  is  much  writing  on  the  subject — some  good,  more 
bad.  In  the  latter  class  fall  two  recent  publications,  which  have  much 
in  common.  The  first  of  these  is  Doughty’s  “Evidences  of  Man  in  the 
Drift  j”1  the  second  is  Wright’s  “Man  and  the  Glacial  Period.”  2 Both 
w.orks  profess  to  treat  of  the  geologic  antiquity  of  man,  though  neither 
author  can  be  classed  as  geologist  or  anthropologist.  The  former  is  a 
numismatist,  a member  of  the  American  Numismatic  and  Archaeological 
Society,  and  makes  no  pretense  of  geologic  skill  or  repute ; the  latter 
is  a professor  of  theology  in  a theologic  seminary,  yet  lays  claim 
withal  to  geologic  skill,  (C)  which  serves  to  render  his  writing  the 
more  specious. 


(Note  C)  The  reviewer  and  Professor  Wright  are  at  entire  antipodes  as 
to  the  best  way  to  acquire  “geologic  skill.”  Professor  Wright  has  spent 
much  time  in  the  field  studying  nature,  while  Mr.  McGee  seems  to  think  a 
man  on  a stool  will  know  most  about  the  field.  Witness  his  “geomorphy” 
hereafter.  Early  in  Mr.  McGee’s  remarkable  career  as  a geologist,  in  an 
address  before  the  Iowa  Horticultural  Society,  after  discussing  the.  glacial 
field  in  Illinois,  Iowa  and  Missouri,  he  said  : “It  hence  appears  that  in 

certain  cases  the  geologist  is  able,  after  a few  weeks’  actual  observation  and 
some  philosophic  research,  to  so  definitely  formulate  the  character  of 


1 Evidences  of  Man  in  the  Drift — a description  of  certain  archaeological  objects  re- 
cently discovered  in  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  New 
Jersey:  read  before  the  American  Numismatic  and  Archaeological  Society,  March 
28,  1892  ; by  Francis  Worcester  Doughty.  New  York  : privately  printed,  1892. 

2 The  International  Scientific  Series.  Man  and  the  Glacial  Period;  by  G.  Freder- 
ick Wright,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  F.  G.  S.  A.,  professor  in  Oberlin  Theological  Seminary, 
assistant  on  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  author  of  The  Ice  Age  in  North 
America,  Logic  of  Christian  Evidences,  etc.;  with  an  Appendix  on  Tertiary  Man,  by 
Prof.  Henry  W.  Haynes  (fully  illustrated).  New  York:  D.  Appleton  and  Company, 
1892. 


7 


ii 

Mr.  Doughty  (D)  appears  to  have  made  a large  collection  of  ice- 
wrought  and  water-worn  pebbles  and  ferruginous  nodules  from  the  glacial 
drift,  and  to  have  found  in  their  varied  and  curious  forms  suggestions  of 
elaborate  art.  The  ferruginous  nodules  are  his  most  precious  relics, 
abounding  as  they  do  in  the  fantastic  forms  of  clay  cemented  by  iron 
oxides.  “To  geologists  these  tablets  are  known  as  a variety  of  clay 
stones”  (page  13)  ; but  to  Mr.  Doughty  they  are  engraved  tablets 
rich  in  records  of  the  past.  “ They  bear  upon  their  flattened  surfaces 
figures  of  human  and  animal  forms,  sometimes  singly  represented,  but 
more  frequently  in  groups,”  of  which  one  “represents  a man  with 
Cacausian  features  sitting  in  the  presence  of  several  highly-colored  in- 
dividuals, who  approach  him  with  bowed  heads.  In  each  instance, 
either  the  seated  figure  holds  a staff  bearing  the  head  of  a serpent,  or  the 
stalf  is  held  before  or  behind  him  by  another.  The  seated  figure  almost 
always  wears  an  elaborate  feathered  crown  resembling  that  worn  by  the 
Palenque  figures”  (page  10).  “Having  no  desire  to  theorize,”  Mr. 
Doughty  merely  suggests  that  the  scene  represents  “ the  ruler  of  the 


deposits  extending  over  an  area  which  could  only  be  examined  in  detail 
by  years  of  labor,  that  months  of  investigation  may  not  reveal  a single 
inaccuracy  or  disclose  a single  unlooked  for  phenomenon.” 

Mr.  McGee  has  done  with  this  notion  as  a former  candidate  for 
State  Treasurer  said  he  did  with  his  early  poverty — he  has  held  his  own 
remarkably  well. 

There  are  those,  who,  in  the  study  of  nature,  believe  in  observation 
rather  than  imagination. 


Indeed,  is  it  better  to  teach  nature  or  to  be  taught  by  it?  What  would 
Agassiz,  the  founder  of  glacial  geology,  have  thought  of  the  stool  system  ? 
His  experience,  by  his  neighbor  and  friend,  Longfellow,  reads  : 


“ And  Nature,  the  dear  old  nurse,  took 
The  child  upon  her  knee, 

Saying,  ‘ Here  is  a story  book 

Thy  Father  has  written  for  thee.’ 

“ ‘ Come,  wander  with  me/  she  said, 

‘ Into  regions  yet  untrod, 

And  read  what  is  still  unread 
In  the  manuscripts  of  God.’ 


“And  he  waudered  away  and  away, 
With  Nature,  the  dear  old  nurse, 
Who  sang  to  him  night  and  day 
The  rhymes  of  the  universe. 

“And  whenever  the  way  seemed  long, 
Or  his  heart  began  to  fail, 

She  would  sing  a more  wonderful  song, 
Or  tell  a more  marvellous  tale.” 


(Note  D)  No  notes  are  made  as  to  the  pamphlet  of  Mr.  Doughty,  though 
there  is  no  apparent  reason  why  he  should  be  so  dishonored  by  personal 
abuse.  His  pamphlet  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  book  of  Pro- 
fessor Wright  and  is  evidently  reviewed  with  the  other  to  transfer 
ridicule  and  abuse  from  one  to  the  other,  if  that  may  be  accomplished. 


8 


serpent  clan,  or  totem,  receiving  homage  from  * * * subordinate 

tribes.”  ‘‘Many  of  these  clay  tablets  are  painted,  but  the  arrangement  of 
color,  which  resembles  the  Chinese  style,  is  such  as  to  render  it  very  dif- 
ficult to  determine  the  nature  of  the  scenes  depicted.”  They  are  also4 
patinated.  A perplexing  feature,  however,  is  “the  want  of  proper 
division  between  the  figures,  ” which  is  ascribed  to  a fundamental  idea  of 
“space  economy,”  and  which  “to  our  eye  creates  hopeless  confusion.  The 
large  figures  are  made  up  of  many  smaller  ones,  and  the  designs  are 
hard  to  decipher.  * * * A foot  in  one  group  is  liable  to  serve  as  a 

head  in  another,  the  arm  of  one  becomes  the  leg  of  another,”  etc.  More- 
over, “a  specimen  held  one  way  shows  one  design,  reversed  another, 
turned  again,  still  another,  and  so  on  up  to  four.”  Most  readers  will 
heartily  concur  in  the  author’s  qualified  opinion  that  “it  is  hard  to  under- 
stand such  artistic  methods”  (page  11).  The  sculpturing  is  not  external 
alone:  “Many  of  the  tablets  contain  a layer  of  clay  through  the  center. 

* * * This  interior  layer  of  clay  presents  a second  face  as  perfect  as 

the  first,  and  in  every  case  is  found  worked  up  with  figures  or  painted;” 
and  “the  most  perfect  depictions  of  the  human  form  * * * were  found 
upon  the  inside  clay  surfaces  of  some  of  these  stones.”  Mr.  Doughty’s 
. active  imagination  is  able  to  find  not  only  “traces  of  animal  matter”  in  the 
tablets,  but  “parchment  or  skin  dressed  in  clay  and  upon  this  scroll 
“appears  an  excellent  male  head,  a full  figure  of  a very  fat  gentleman, 
and  other  devices”  (page  12).  In  short,  “these  tablets  appear  to  be 
simply  the  clay  books  of  the  men  of  the  drift  ; ” and  this  interpretation  is 
sustained  by  a quotation  from  Job,  xix,  23  (page  13). 

The  pebbles  are  hardly  less  significant  to  Mr.  Doughty  ; many  are 
heads  in  profile  and  full  face  ; some  bear  ‘ ‘Indian  figures  and  feathered 
head-dresses  strongly  marked.  Others  represent  faces  of  a distinctly  Cau- 
casian type,  and  are  often  heavily  bearded.  Sometimes  the  beard  is 
represented  as  a mere  goatee,  at  others  as  being  blown  by  the  wind,  at 
others  still  cut  square  after  the  Assyrian  style.”  “Other  heads  have 
been  found  of  strongly- marked  negroid  features  and  cranial  shape 
and  it  is  truly  remarkable  that  the  Caucasian  pebbles  are  white,  the 
negroid  pebbles  black  and  the  Indian  pebbles  brown,  and  even  more 
remarkable  that  the  Caucasian  heads  “wear  hats  of  various  recognized  pat- 
terns” (page  9).  Most  striking  of  all  is  the  solitary  instance  “of  a 
white  face  with  strongly -marked  Celtic  features,  and  a heavy  red 
beard  and  moustache.”  The  author  suggestively  adds,  “I  have  found 
no  representative  of  the  cow,  but  of  the  man-headed  bull  I have  several 
examples”  (page  10).  Other  “existing  animals”  are  “the  dog,  horse, 
sheep,  rabbit,  black  bear,  wolf,  anthropoid  ape,  elephant,  green  adder, 
parrot  and  smaller  birds,  and  the  dolphin  or  whale.”  There  are  also 
many  prehistoric  animal  forms,  including  “an  animal  of  hippopotimus 
[sic]  type,  a large  web-footed  bird  somewhat  resembling  the  dodo,  and, 
lastly,  a reptile  with  a long  snout  and  flattened  paddle-like  tail”  (page  10). 

Not  content  with  proving  the  existence  of  man  in  the  drift  by  these 
remarkable  carvings,  Mr.  Doughty  ventures  to  predict  that  the  “Old 
Man  of  the  Mountain,  that  gigantic  human  profile  cut  on  the  New  Harnp- 


9 


shire  hills”  (an  imaginative  sketch  of  which  embellishes  the  work),  was 
carved  out  “ untold  ages  ago  by  the  men  of  the  drift  ” (page  15). 

It  should  be  added  that  Mr.  Doughty  rejects  the  “ well-known 
glacial  theory  ” and  accepts  the  view  of  Ignatius  Donnelly,  that  “the 
drift  was  suddenly  thrown  upon  the  earth  either  by  the  contact  of  our 
planet  with  a comet  or  by  some  other  agency  not  understood”  (page  7). 

In  brief  the  book  is  a bundle  of  absurdities  worthy  of  notice  only 
because  it  is  representative  of  the  vain  imaginings  so  prevalent  among 
unscientific  collectors  and  because  its  maleficent  influence  has  been  multi- 
plied by  favorable  press  notices. 

in 

The  Reverend  Professor  Wright  begins  with  an  introductory  chapter, 
in  which  he  discusses  the  characters  of  existing  glaciers.  He  says:  “A 

glacier  is  a mass  of  ice  so  situated  and  of  such  a size  as  to  have  motion 
in  itself.  * * * Upon  ascending  a glac  er  far  enough,  one  reaches  a 

part  corresponding  to  the  lake  out  of  which  a river  often  flows.  Technic- 
ally this  motionless  part  is  called  the  neve.  * * * The  neve  is  the 

reservoir  from  which  the  glacier  gets  both  its  supply  of  ice  and  the  impulse 
which  gives  it  its  first  movement  ” (pages  2,  3).  Unfortunately  the 
author  does  not  indicate  how  a moving  body  can  have  a motionless  part, 
(E)  nor  how  it  receives  both  matter  and  motion  from  this  motionless  part. 
He  fails,  in  short,  to  indicate  what  portion,  if  any,  of  his  statement  is  true.1 

The  second  chapter  treats  of  existing  glaciers  and  the  third  of  glacial 
motion,  and  in  so  far  as  they  are  made  up  of  quotations  from  trust- 
worthy observers  are  worthy  of  high  confidence.  It  is  to  be  regretted, 


(Note  E)  This  plain  inaccuracy  must  have  given  Mr.  McGee  great  joy, 
and  fortunately  it  would  mislead  no  one  else.  It  was  evidently  not  one  of 
judgment.  It  may  not  have  been  the  author’s.  If  before  the  word  “motion- 
less ” is  inserted  “ nearly”  or  “apparently  ” or  (if  the  author  had  in  mind 
some  former  writers)  “so-called,”  the  grammar  would  be  perfect.  The 
meaning  is  clear.  The  neve  is  not  absolutely  motionless,  but  is  described  as 
a “lake  out  of  which  a river  flows,”  which  has  some  motion  or  it  would  never 
get  to  the  outlet.  See  remarks  of  Mr,  S.  F.  Emmons  and  Mr.  W.  H. 
Dali  of  the  United  States  Geologic  Survey,  vol.  vii,  Bulletin  of  the  Philo- 
sophical Society  of  Washington,  p.  37  (meeting  of  May  10,  1884). 


1 Our  foremost  glacialist,  Professor  T.  C.  Chamberlin,  says  of  this  remarkable  ex- 
position: “As  a matter  of  fact,  the  neve  moves  like  other  parts  of  a glacier,  and  the 

signs  of  such  motion  are  indicated  in  the  cut  on  the  very  page  before  the  reader  as  he 
follows  this  astonishing  statement.  The  motion  bf  the  neve  has  been  a matter  of 
common  knowledge  for  half  a century,  anti  is  absolutely  beyond  question.  The  com- 
parison with  a lake  is  wholly  misleading,  and  evidently  springs  from  a fundamental 
misconception  of  a glacier.” — The  Dial,  vol  xiii,  1892,  p.  302. 


10 


however,  that  the  quotations  are  not  more  extensive  (F)  and  in  some  cases 
better  selected — for  example,  the  observations  of  Sir  Wyville  Thomp- 
son in  the  antarctic  region  are  ignored.  It  is  to  be  regretted  even 
more  deeply  that  the  author  speciously  defends  his  own  blundering 
attempt  to  measure  the  rate  of  ice  motion  in  Muir  glacier  instead  or 
accepting  the  excellent  series  of  measurements  by  Professor  H.  F. 
Reid.  (G)  In  1886  he  sought  to  measure  the  movement  of  this  magnificent 
glacier  by  “observations  * * * with  a sextant  upon  pinnacles  of  ice 

recognizable  from  a base-line  established  upon  the  shore  ” (page  47),  and 
obtained  a value  of  70  feet  per  day.  In  1890  Professor  Reid  measured  the 
ice  flow  at  the  same  season  by  theodolite  readings  on  a line  of  flags  at 


(Note  F)  Mr.  McGee  differs  from  the  Edinburgh  Review  for  April, 
1892,  which,  in  an  able  article  on  Dr.  Wright’s  larger  work  on  the  Ice 
Age,  says,  “From  practical  work  he  was  led  on  to  the  eminently  useful 
task  of  summarizing,  for  the  benefit  of  the  general  reading  public,  the 
mass  of  information  accumulated  by  himself  and  his  coadjutors  ; and  h 
brought  to  its  execution  the  valuable  qualifications  of  wide  persona^ 
experience,  quiet  enthusiasm  for  his  subject  and  a disinterested  love  of 
truth.  He  might,  indeed,  have  trusted  more  than  he  has  done  to 
his  own  literary  capabilities,  for  in  his  laudable  desire  to  let  his  fellow 
laborers  speak  for  themselves,  he  has  unnecessarily,  here  and  there,  given 
to  his  admirably  illustrated  volume  somewhat  the  air  of  a compilation.” 


(Note  G)  It  is  the  opinion  of  high  authorities  that  both  measurements 
were  substantially  correct.  Mr.  McGee  is  either  very  unfair  or  ignorant 
of  the  literature  of  the  subject  in  all  of  which  causes  of  difference  appear. 
(See  Man  and  the  Glacial  Period,  p.  47;  Am.  Geologist,  December,  1892, 
page  397;  Mr.  Warren  Upham  in  “ Pleistocene  and  Present  Ice  Sheets  ” at 
the  Ottawa  meeting  of  the  Geological  Society  of  America;  Professor  H.  P. 
Cushing,  Am.  Geologist,  October,  1891,  pp.  215,  216;  Scientific  American 
for  April  9,  1892,  p.  227  ; and  Professor  H.  F.  Reid,  vol.  iv.  Nat.  Geog. 
Mag.  pp.  41,  42.)  Whether  ignorant  or  not,  Mr.  McGee  is  certainly  unfair, 
for  Professor  W right  on  the  very  page  referred  to  did  accept  Professor  Reid’s 
measurements.  He  even  speaks  of  them  as  “by  methods  promising  greater 
accuracy  than  could  be  obtained  by  mine.”  Mr.  McGee  calls  on  Professor 
Wright  to  accept  Professor  Reid’s  measurements  in  place  of  his  own  when 
both  Reid  and  Cushing  say  (did  Mr.  McGee  read  it  ?)  that  the  ice  must  have 
moved  faster  in  Wright’s  time.  In  1890  it  had  retreated  3000  feet  and  was  less 
than  half  as  high.  In  1886  it  was  apparently  advancing,  in  1890  retreat- 
ing. Professor  Reid  anticipated  it  would  continue  to  retreat;  but  Muir  Gla- 
cier is  a coquette,  and,  in  1892,  Professor  Reid  found  it  was  again  advancing. 


11 


approximately  equidistant  points  across  the  glacier,  the  observations  being 
made  from  two  stations  on  opposite  sides  of  the  stream.  Two  independent 
series  of  readings  were  made,  each  covering  a period  of  three  or  four  days  ; 
and  partly  for  the  reason  that  they  were  designed  to  correct  a manifest  error, 
the  observations  were  made  with  exceptional  care.  The  measurements  show 
that  the  daily  motion  ranges  from  a few  inches  near  the  sides  to  about  7 
feet  toward  the  center,  the  mean  being  4 or  5 feet.* 1  The  reverend  profes- 
sor seeks  to  impugn  this  excellent  work  by  specious  arguments  (page  47), 
and  even  FALSIFIES  Reid’s  record  by  speaking  of  “ ten  feet  per  day  in 
the  most  rapidly- moving  portion  observed,”  while  Reid’s  highest  figure  is 
7.2  feet.  (H) 

Chapter  IV  is  devoted  to  “ Signs  of  past  glaciation.”  These  signs,  are 
enumerated  as  (1)  scratches  upon  the  rocks;  (2)  extensive  unstratified 
deposits;  (3)  transported  bowlders;  and  (4)  extensive  gravel  terraces. 
The  chapter  is  elementary  if  not  puerile,  and  is  characterized  by 
EGREGIOUS  AND  MISLEADING  EGOTISM.  It  purports  to 
summarize  the  work  of  a large  number  of  geologists  in  different  countries, 
chiefly  in  the  United  States,  yet  but  two  American  geologists  are 
mentioned,  while  the  first  personal  pronoun  appears  in  a score  of  places, 
sometimes  in  deceptive  connection.  Thus  he  says  ([)  (page  62):  “I  have 

traced  this  limit  of  southern  bowlders  for  thousands  of  miles  across  the 
continent,  according  to  the  delineation  which  may  be  seen  in  the  map  in 
a later  chapter  ;”  and  again  he  extols  “ our  map”  and  depreciates  Profes- 
sor Chamberlin’s  earlier  mapping  by  comparison;  (J)  while  in  fact  his  map 


(Note  H)  Professor  Reid  himself  says,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University 
Circular,  No.  84,  “The  observations  on  the  flags  showed  a motion  of 
eight  to  ten  feet  a day.”  In  a paper  in  the  Literary  Northwest , for 
Feb.  1893,  Mr.  McGee  wanders  still  farther  from  the  facts,  and,  omitting 
even  the  7.2  feet  of  his  article,  represents  Professor  Wright  as  representing 
that  “Professor  H.  F.  Reid’s  subsequent  measurement  of  from  four  to  five 
- feet  per  day  is  worthless.”  This  statement  is  in  every  respect  the  opposite 
of  the  truth. 



(Note  I)  This  statement  is  strictly  true.  A thousand  miles  in  East  and 
West  represents  very  many  more  miles  of  terminal  moraine,  as  Mr.  McGee 
ought  to  know,  and  could  learn  by  looking  at  any  map  of  it.  The 
statement  a few  lines  further  on  is  not  fair — Wright  says,  “ thousands  of 
miles  across,”  not  clear  across.  He  has  no  doubt  traveled  that  line  for 
thousands  of  miles  and  no  doubt  a greater  distance  than  any  other  man. 


(Note  J)  This  statement  is  entirely  imaginative. 


i Nat.  Geog.  Mag.,  vol.  iv,  1892,  page  44. 


I 


12 


is  little  more  than  a reduction  of  a map  published  by  Chamberlin  years  be- 
fore, (K)  and  the  Reverend  Professor  Wright  never  followed  “across  the 
continent”  (I)  any  of  the  lines  indicated  upon  it  and  never  made  any 
observations  in  the  entire  region  which  are  accepted  with  confidence  by 
leading  American  geologists.  Moreover,  the  enumeration  and  descriptions 
of  “signs  of  glaciation”  is  reprehensibly  incomplete  and  archaic.  Probably 
the  most  trustworthy  and  certainly  the  most  widely-spread  evidence  of 
glacial  action  is  found  in  topography.  The  American  drift  is  known  to 
be  of  glacial  origin  not  only  from  its  similarity  to  the  moraines  of  living 
glaciers,  but  from  a distinct  surface  configuration,  entirely  different  from 
that  produced  by  water  or  any  other  geologic  agency  except  ice;  and  ex- 
tensive drift-free  areas  are  characterized  by  a topography  which  could  not 
have  been  produced  by  running  water,  or  by  any  other  agency  except 
moving  ice.  It  is  the  function  of  geology  to  interpret  these  topographic 


(Note  K)  This  statement  becomes  very  amusing  upon  an  examination  of 
the  maps,  for  the  very  map  which  Professor  Wright  is  said  to  have  copied 
was  itself  copied  from  Wright.  Not  dishonorably  so,  for  Professor  Cham- 
berlin expressly  accredited  to  Professor  Wright  on  the  very  face  of  his  maps, 
the  line  from  the  Mississippi  to  Pennsylvania,  and  to  Lewis  & Wright  the 
Pennsly vania  line.  (See  Third  Annual  Report  of  Geol.  Survey  (map,  page 
314,  map  page  322,  and  map  page  346);  also  Sixth  Annual  Report,  map 
page  205,  and  Seventh  Annual  Report  map,  page  155.)  Professor  Chamber- 
lin did  not  follow  accurately  the  Wright  line,  but  he  partly  corrects  his 
line  in  the  Seventh  Annual  Report,  still  giving  Wright’s  name  to  the 
Ohio  boundary  and  Lewis  & Wright  to  the  Pennsylvania.  Copies  of  parts 
of  the  Chamberlin  maps  are  herewith.  The  names  are  not  very  conspicuous 
in  the  original,  but  may  easily  be  seen  there  and  in  this  reproduction, 
by  a glass.  The  name  of  Wright  occurs  just  east  of  Cincinnati  and 
Lewis  & Wright  in  Eastern  Pennsylvania.  Professor  Chamberlin,  on 
pages  339,  341,  346  and  347  of  the  Report  also  refers  to  the  work  of 
Wright  and  of  Lewis  & Wright  in  tracing  the  boundary.  Professor 
Wright  not  only  credits  “Professor  Chamberlin”  for  his  work — with  not 
one  uncomplimentary  word — pages  101,  102  and  103,  but  praises  his 
“sagacity,”  p.  102.  The  extent  of  the  drift  is  partly  shown  on  the  Cham- 
berlin maps  by  a drab  wash,  which  does  not  appear  in  a photographic  repro- 
duction. In  the  Literary  Northwest  McGee  mentions  the  above  map  on 
p.  314,  3d  An.  Rep.,  as  the  one  claimed  to  be  copied  by  Wright.  He 
calls  it  “Chamberlin’s  classic  map  of  terminal  moraines,  published  early  in 
the  last  decade.”  Well,  it  may  be  classic,  when  it  contains  the  lines  per- 
sonally surveyed  by  Professors  Wright  & Lewis.  Every  one  of  the  five 
maps  above  mentioned  contains  credit  to  one  or  both.  Why  does  not  McGee 
use  his  glasses?  It  is  not  safe  for  him  to  browse  around  without  them. 


13 


orms  through  that  branch  of  the  science  known  as  “geomorphy,  or  some 
imes  as  the ''Sew  Geology  ;  *  *and  much  of  our  knowledge  concerning  the 
lacial  history  of  the  continent  has  been  acquired  thereby; ; ■ but  there  is 
tothing  in  the  Reverend  Professor  Wright’s  numerous  writings  to  indicate 
he  slightest  comprehension  of  the  principles  of  geomorphy.  ;(L) 

In  the  fifth  and  sixth  chapters  “ancient  glaciers”  are  described  at 
Ireary  length;  for  the  description  is  a melange  of  crude  observation, 
HSLEADING  QUOTATION,  and  DECEPTIVE  EGOTISM.  Within 
i generation  glacial  geology  has  made  great  strides,  and  nowhere  has  t e 
progress  of  the  science  been  more  rapid  than  in  the  United . States.  One 
>f  the  results  of  the  brilliant  researches  by  Chamberlin,  Win chell,  Salis- 
bury, Gilbert,  Smock,  Leverett,  and  other  geologists  is  the  recognition  of  a 
•omplex  glacial  history,  including  two,  three,  or  more  distinct  ice  invas- 
ions separated  by  intervals  of  mild  climate;  a history  so  complex  and 


(Note  L)  Geomorphy.  Possibly  Professor  Wright,  having  much  more 
| experience  in  glacial  phenomena  than  Mr.  McGee,  has  not  as  much  faith  in 
VlcGee’s  new  science  as  he  himself  has.  At  any  rate  it  is  hardly  wise  to 
•eproach  Professor  Wright  with  not  expounding  it  to  the  nation  in  so  small 
L booh  as  “Man  and  the  Glacial  Period,”  when  McGee  himself  thinks  it 
! necessary  to  inform  scientists  of  the  existence  of  the  science.  See  another 
tirade  from  “McGee  in  Science  for  December,  1892,  p.  317.  He  says: 

• <Dr.  Brin  ton  errs  in  saying  ‘as  a glacialist  the  author  of  this  volume  stands 
among  the  first  in  the  country,  and  his  long  study  of  that  remarkable  period 
in  the  geologic  history  of  the  planet  invests  every  thing  he  says  about  it 
with  uncommon  authority.’  Within  recent  years  there  has  grown  up  a new 
branch  of  geologic  science  which  has  been  called  by  its  devotees  Geo- 
morphic  Geology,’  ‘ Geomorphology  ’ and  still  more  acceptably  ‘ Geomor- 
phy,’ and  which  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  the  ‘New  Geology.’  It  is 
the  function  of  geomorphy  to  read  geologic  history  from  earth  forms  as  the 
older  geology  read  history  from  deposits  and  their  fossils.  * * * The 

primary  idea  has  extended  and  expanded  until  now  the  geologist  not  only 
j recognizes  base  levels  in  certain  topographic  forms  but  is  able  to  determine 
! from  steepness  of  slope  and  other  topographical  relations  the  rate  at  which 
I erosion  has  proceeded  in  the  past  and  thereby  the  attitude  and  altitude 
of  the  land  during  earlier  ages.”  As  with  most  of  McGee’s  big  words 
these  are  not  in  the  Century  Dictionary,  save  geomorphy,  there  defined 
(I  hope  “ acceptably  ”)  as  “the  theory  of  the  figure  of  the  earth.”  If 
Mr.  McGee  dabbles  in  the  new  geology,  it  is  to  be  hoped  he  may  “read 
geologic  history  from  earth  forms”  more  correctly  than  he  has  Professor 
4 Chamberlin’s  maps.  It  will,  however,  be  difficult  to  determine  the  rate 
of  erosion  on  hills  containing  in  some  cases  all  slopes,  and  in  many  cases 
different  soils  and  rocks. 


14 


long-continued  that,  according  to  the  independent  estimates  of  different  * 
geologists,  if  the  postglacial  period  is  represented  by  unity,  then  the  period  1 
which  has  elapsed  since  the  beginning  of  glaciation  must  be  represented  by  i 
two  figures.  (4)  But  this  conclusion  of  modern  science  is  not  recognized 
by  the  Reverend  Professor  Wright  save  when  he  seeks  to  conceal  its  evi- 
dence, and  through  a specious  combination  of  quotation  and  suppression 
to  misrepresent  the  views  of  competent  geologists.  (N)  Thus  his  descrip- 
tion is  superficial  and  warped,  and  his  conclusions  are  worthless  or  unintelli- 
gible. A generation  ago  the  description  and  conclusions  might  have 
passed  for  science;  to-day  they  rank  as  CHARLATANRY. 


(Note  M)  What  two  figures,  or  is  this  a figure  of  speech?  His  Geo-  j 
morphology  should  give  more  exact  results.  No  one  doubts  changes  in  I 
climate  during  the  glacial  period.  Many,  and  indeed  most  geologists,  I 
doubt  two  entirely  distinct  glacial  periods  operating  on  the  present  surface  I 
of  the  Northern  States.  The  author  gives  a full  representation  of  these  I 
views,  in  fact  fuller  than  he  gives  of  his  own  (pages  322-326),  including 
even  the  name  of  Mr.  McGee.  Possibly  Mr.  McGee  did  not  read  the  book 
he  abuses.  From  the  fact  that  there  early  appeared  lines  of  moraine  far 
back  of  the  front  of  the  drift,  some,  too  early,  inferred  that  there  were  two 
entirely  distinct  glacial  periods,  being  helped  to  that  belief  by  a misunder- 
standing of  British  glacial  geology,  explained  in  this  volume.  A part  of 
Professor  Chamberlin’s  supposed  moraine  of  the  second  glacial  period  will  | 
be  seen  on  his  maps  herein,  but  every  time  the  ice  stopped  it  left  a terminal 
moraine.  Mr.  Leverett  has  found  eleven  or  twelve  in  Ohio.  (See  his  1 
article  and  map,  Am.  Journal  of  Science  for  April,  1892.)  It  is  absurd  ; 
to  suppose  each  of  these,  marks  a distinct  glacial  period,  the  ice  from  the  I 
extreme  north  gracefully  again  advancing  as  in  a dance,  and  carefully  I 
stopping  each  time  within  a few  miles  of  its  former  advance. 


(Note  N)  It  is  interesting  to  compare  Wright’s  clear  statement  of  both 
sides,  pages  106-120  and  322-326  with  McGee’s  dogmatic  statement  in 
Popular  Seience  Monthly  for  November,  1888,  pp.  20-21.  The  Popular 
Science  Monthly  for  April,  1893,  p.  774,  rightfully  charges  the  reviewer 
with  committing  the  very  error  he  charges  upon  Professor  Wright. 
The  distinguished  author  says, “We  cannot  find  in  the  volume  any  assertion 
that  the  ice  age  was  a unit,  though  this  is  the  view  entertained  by  its 
author.  On  the  contrary  fourteen  pages  are  filled  with  the  arguments  on 
both  sides,  enabling  a reader  to  form  his  own  opinion.  It  is  fair  to  expect 
the  critic  to  shun  the  fault  he  condemns.  ” Page  326,  in  a note  the  author 
modestly  says:  “It  does  not  yet  seem  to  me  that  the  duality  of  the  period 

is  proved.” 


15 


) The  seventh  chapter,  “Drainage  systems  and  the  glacial  period,”  is  a 
’.stemless  catalogue  of  a wide  variety  of  interesting  but  distantly  related 
-acts.  It  is  the  function,  and  indeed  the  end,  of  science  to  classify  phe- 
nomena in  such  manner  as  to  indicate  natural  relation;  but  the  arrano-e- 
nent  in  this  chapter,  if  arrangement  there  be,  is  not  such  as  to  set  forth 
Natural  relation,  or  geologic  history,  or  science,  but  such  as  to  conceal  re- 
'ation  and  give  a false  air  of  simplicity  and  unity  to  glacial  history 
• thus  to  contravene  modern  science.  For  example,  the  author  re- 

fers to  Wmchell’s  work  on  the  recession  of  the  fall  of  St.  Anthony  at 
'ength  (pages  209,  210),  but  in  such  manner  as  to  suppress  Professor 
Vinchells  conclusions  as  to  the  bipartition  of  glac'al  history;  (Q)  and  on 
(ater  pages  (233-237)  he  quotes  Russell  and  Gilbert  on  the  fossil  seas  of 
he  Great  Basin  in  such  manner  as  to  convey  an  impression  of  fairness  and 
ijompleteness,  yet  in  such  terms  as  to  conceal  their  conclusions  concerning- 
he  bipartition  of  the  lacrustal  history  of  this  part  of  the  continent.  (F) 

To  the  anthropologist  the  interest  of  the  subject  to  which  the  work  is 
| om  in  ally  devoted  centers  in  the  eighth  chapter,  -Relics  of  man  in  the 
lamai  penod.  The  instances  in  which  “the  relics  of  man  are  directly 
nd  indubitably  connected  with  deposits  of  this  particular  period  east  of 
he  Rocky  Mountains”  (page  254)  are  (1)  the  Abbott  argillites  from  the 
:;renton  gravels;  (2)  the  Metz  “paleoliths”  from  Madisonville  and  Love- 
Irii  S6)  ^ Cresson  “paleolith”  from  Medora,  Indiana;  (4)  the 

BUs  flint  from  Newcomers  town,  Ohio;  and  (5)  the  Winchell-Babbitt 
juartz  chips  from  Little  Falls,  Minnesota.  In  addition  he  introduces  in 
vidence  (6)  the  Cresson  argillite  from  Clay mont,  Delaware;  (7)  the 
^alaveras  skull  and  other  relics  from  the  Pacific  coast,  and  (8)  the  Nampa 
jgurine  from  Idaho,  with  the  implication  that  the  first  of  these  indicates 
he  existence  of  early  glacial  or  preglacial  man  and  the  others  preglackil 
r lertiary  man  the  implication  being  deceptively  guarded,  ^however, 
y indefinite  expressions  and  meaningless  cross-references.  (Q) 


(Note  0)  As  if  the  author  ought  to  introduce  under  this  head  matter 
lready  fully  discussed  on  pages  106-120. 


(Note  P)  Express  statement  of  this  fact  on  page  237  “evidently  there 
iere  two  periods  of  marked  increase  in  the  size  of  the  lakes,  with  an  arid 
sriod  intervening.” 


(Note  Q)  See  Mr.  McGee  himself  in  the  Popular  Science  Monthly  for 
ovember,  1888,  making  pompous  and  dogmatic  assertions  in  favor  of  the 
lies  of  glacial  man  in  America.  Pages  23,  24,  he  says:  “It  is  significant 

pat  in  all  these  cases  the  human  relics  were  found  in  deposits  repre- 
inting  the  closing  episodes  of  the  later  epoch  of  the  Quaternary  cold.” 


1 

! 


16 


Now  the  first  mentioned  instance  (the  Abbott  argillites)  cannot  be 
accepted  by  reason  of  the  recent  splendid  work  of  Professor  Holmes, 
who  has  shown,  first,  that  the  supposed  paleoliths  are  not  finished  im- 
plements, but  work-shop  rejects  or  blanks;  and,  second , that  there  is 
grave  reason  for  questioning  whether  the  objects  are  not  confined  to  the 
modern  talus — i.  e.,  whether  they  occur  in  the  Trenton  gravels  at  all. 

The  second  instance  was  formerly  accepted  by  archeologists  as  evidence 
concerning  the  distribution  of  the  hypothetic  glacial  man  whose  existence 
was  supposed  to  be  proved  by  the  Trenton  and  Little  Falls  testimony; 
but  since  the  occurrences  are  isolated,  since  the  finder  is  not  a skilled  geolo- 
gist able  to  discriminate  between  undisturbed  glacial  deposits  and  the 
talus  derived  therefrom,  and  since  in  one  case  similar  objects  occur  on  the 
surface  above  the  point  at  which  the  “paleolith”  was  found,  the  presump- 
tion is  against  the  evidence  and  the ‘‘finds”  cannot  be  accepted  as  proof 
of  the  existence  of  man  during  the  glacial  period.  The  same  must  be 
said  also  of  the  third  and  fourth  instances  ; and  in  connection  with  the 
last  it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  the  indirect  personal  statements  of  the 
Peverend  Professor  Wright  (page  251)  are  unworthy  of  confidence 
partly  because  they  are  indirect,  partly  because  his  incompetence  as  a 
geologist  is  tested  by  another  of  his  “instances”  (the  Nampa  figurine). 

The  fifth  instance  (that  of  Little  Falls)  must  be  rejected  because  Pro- 
fessor Holmes,  with  Professor  N.  H.  Winchell,  who  first  found  artificial 
flakes  in  the  surface  sands  at  this  place,  has  within  the  year  shown  by 
means  of  excavations  and  extended  surveys  that  there  is  no  implement- 
bearing  stratum  at  the  locality  in  question,  and  that  the  quartz  chips 
are  confined  to  the  talus  and  to  the  surface  soil  and  subsoil  within  reach 
of  the  windfall  excavations  now  pitting  the  surface  of  the  glacial  ter- 
race. It  is  painful  to  learn  that  a conscientious  observer  like  the  late 
Miss  Babbitt  should  be  at  fault  in  a matter  of  so  grave  import;  enough  to 
say  that  the  original  discoverer  accepts  Professor  Holmes’  conclusions. 


“These  cases,”  cited  by  him,  include  nine  discoveries  including  N.  H. 
Winchell ’s,  Gilbert’s  and — bless  my  soul — one  by  McGee  himself.  He 
has  on  pages  28-36  a very  precise  description  of  the  country  where  the 
New  Jersey  implements  were  deposited,  with  several  maps  and  bird’s-eye 
views,  so  precise  that  he  could  have  gotten  it  only  from  his  “6r£emorphy,” 
and  on  page  31  makes  the  astounding  statement,  “The  implements  occur 
in  such  numbers  that  over  25,000  have  been  collected  by  Abbott,”  which 
is  24,600  more  paleoliths  than  Abbott  ever  claimed  to  have  found.  He 
says  the  “‘turtle  back’  type  (of  implement)  is  found  throughout  the 
deposit”  (Trenton  gravel)  from  top  to  bottom  but  most  abundantly  in  the 
lower  half  and  in  progressively  diminishing  abundance  from  bottom  to  top 
of  the  upper  half,  while  the  ‘leaf  shaped’  type  is  found  only  in  the  upper 
half  and  in  progressively  increasing  abundance  upward,”  etc.  * * * 

“The  implements  of  higher  type  occur  over  the  surface  of  the  Trenton  gravels 


17 


The  sixth  instance  (Cresson’s  Claymont  argillite)  must  be  rejected, 
first , on  the  ground  of  inherent  improbability,  because  its  acceptance 
would  at  once  multiply  human  antiquity  by  10,  20,  or  50;  second , be- 
cause of  the  presumption  that  the  object  really  occurred  in  the  talus;  1 
and  third,  because  of  the  utter  lack  of  definitely  corroborative  testimony. 
It  is  to  be  observed  that  Professor  Wright’s  personal  plea  concerning 
this  instance  is  incompetent,  irrevelant,  and  immaterial  because  his 
conception  of  glacial  history  is  without  time  basis — he  fails  to  recognize 
the  succession  of  widely  separated  episodes  of  which  the  glacial  period 
was  made  up.  His  expressions,  too,  are  misleading;  his  declaration  that 
“both  Mr.  McGee  and  myself  have  visited  the  locality  with  Dr.  Cresson, 
and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  implement  occurred  beneath  the 
Columbia  graver’  (pages  258,  259),  conveys  the  idea  that  the  three  par- 
ties named  concurred  in  the  observation  and  the  conclusion,  while  as  a 
matter  of  fact  no  more  than  two  of  the  trio  were  ever  on  the  ground  at 
the  same  time,  only  one  made  the  original  obs“rvation,  and  one  at  least 
emphatically  repudiates  the  conclusion  that  the  “implement,”  if  imple- 
ment it  be,  occurred  underneath  the  Columbia  gravel.  The  distortion  of 
act  in  this  declaration  smacks  of  the  SHYSTER.  (Rj 

The  seventh  instance  cannot  be  accepted  by  any  cautious  archeolo- 
gist at  the  apparent  value  assigned  by  the  reverend  professor.  There 
is,  indeed,  a large  body  of  testimony  concerning  the  association  of  human 
relics  in  auriferous  gravels  beneath  broad  lava  sheets  on  the  Pacific 
coast,  but  the  gravels  and  lava  sheets  have  not  been  correlated  with  the 
glacial  deposits  of  eastern  United  States  or  Europe,  and  their  antiquity, 
either  in  years  or  in  terms  of  geologic  chronology,  has  not  been  determined. 

The  eighth  instance  (the  Nampa  figurine)  is  the  most  satisfactory  of 
all,  since  it  alfords  a measure  of  the  competence  on  the  Reverend  Pro- 
fessor Wright  as  a geologist  and  as  a reasoner  of  the  important  subject  of 
the  antiquity  of  man.  It  is  alleged  that  in  1889  the  figure,  a brittle, 
baked-clay  image  as  fragile  as  a clay  pipe-stem,  was  brought  up  in  the 


but  never  within  them,  while  the  ruder  implements  found  within  the 
gravels  do  not  occur  upon  the  gravel  surface.”  That  article  is  worth  read- 
ing by  anyone  interested  in  this  review. 


(Note  R)  Prof essor  Wright  dees  not  say  he  visited  the  spot  with  McGee, 
but  with  Cresson.  Professor  Wright  is  a high-minded,  candid  Christian 
gentleman  and  McGee  would  be  fortunate  to  have  him  for  a companion.  Is 
it  not  funny  that  McGee’s  abuse  should  have  accompanied  this  statement  in 
Professor  Wright’s  book,  p.  258,  “As  there  is  so  much  chance  for  error  of 


l The  presumption  implicitly  accepted  by  Mr.  Cresson  in  a recent  publication — 
Science,  vol.  xx.  1892,  page  304. 


18 


sand  pump  used  in  connection  with  a heavy  drill  (S)  in  boring  an  arte- 
sian well  at  Nampa,  Idaho,  from  a depth  of  320  feet  and  beneath  a 
heavy  lava  sheet.  Now,  it  is  a fact  that  one  of  the  best-known  geolo- 
gists (T)  of  the  world  chanced  to  visit  Nampa  while  the  boring  was  in  prog- 


judgment  respecting  the  undisturbed  condition  of  the  strata,  and  as  there 
was  so  little  opportunity  for  Dr.  Cresson  to  verify  his  conclusion,  we  may 
well  wait  for  the  cumulative  support  of  other  discoveries  before  building  a 
theory  upon  it  ” ? 


(Note  Sj  Mr.  McGee  introduces  the  phrase  “in  connection  with  a heavy 
drill”  in  such  manner  as  to  lead  the  reader  to  think  that  Professor 
Wright  makes  such  a statement.  Professor  Wright  says  on  page  297 
(Man  and  Glacial  Period)  “the  strata  passed  through  included,  near 
the  surface,  fifteen  feet  of  lava.  Underneath  this,  alternating  beds  of 
clay  and  quicksand  occurred  to  a depth  of  320  feet,  where  there  ap- 
peared indications  of  a former  surface  soil  lying  just  above  the  bed 
rock  from  which  the  clay  image  was  brought  up  in  the  sand  pump.”  A 
heavy  drill  was  used  in  the  lava  but  not  below.  Does  Mr.  McGee  think 
that  the  heavy  drill  in  the  lava  would  destroy  the  image  250  feet  below, 
or  does  he  actually  suppose  that  a heavy  drill  is  used  in  pumping  quick- 
sand? In  the  article  in  the  Literary  Northwest , p.  275,  Mr.  McGee, 
with  still  greater  disregard  for  facts,  says,  “ alleged  to  have  been  pounded 
out  of  volcanic  tuff  by  a heavy  drill.” 

The  great  antiquity  given  by  McGee  to  the  relics  beneath  the  lava  is 
not  Wright’s  mistake,  but  McGee’s  in  making  the  lava  flow  too  old. 


(Note  T)  Was  this  “best  known  geologist  of  the  world”  Mr.  McGee 
himself,  and  did  he  fail  to  give  the  name  through  modesty?  Impossible. 
Mr.  Kurtz,  a gentleman  of  high  reputation  and  well  known  by  leading  and 
prominent  men  in  Idaho  and  elsewhere,  indignantly  denies  such  state- 
ment to  anyone.  The  Nampa  image  was  prominently  introduced  before 
the  world  by  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams  in  1889,  and  made  the  subject 
of  a careful  meeting  of  the  Boston  Society  of  Natural  History,  January  1, 
1890,  Professor  Putnam  presiding,  and  participated  in  by  Professors  Morse, 
Scudder  and  Haynes  with  a long  letter  from  Mr.  Emmons,  of  the  United 
States  Geological  Survey  (Proceedings  Boston  Society  of  Natural  His- 
tory, vol.  xxiv,  1889,  pp.  424,  450).  It  was  prominently  presented,  with 
illustration,  in  the  New  York  Independent  and  the  Scientific  American , in 
November,  1889.  The  Associated  Press  carried  it  throughout  the  country. 


19 


ress,  and  the  figurine  and  tiie  pretty  fiction  were  laid  before  him.  He 
recognized  the  figurine  as  a toy  such  as  the  neighboring  Indians  give 
their  children,  and  laughed  at  the  story  ; whereupon  the  owner  of  the 
object  enjoined  secrecy,  pleading  “Don’t  give  me  away  ; I’ve  fooled  a 
lot  ot*  fellows  already,  and  I’d  like  to  fool  some  more.”  The  geologist 
in  question  gave  no  further  thought  to  the  matter,  knowing  that  so  trans- 
parent a fraud  would  never  deceive  even  a tyro  in  geologic  science ; but 
when  it  came  to  the  notice  of  the  Reverend  Professor  Wright  he  ac 
cepted  the  fiction  and  far  outstripped  the  jocular  finder  by  foisting  it  in 
the  public  print  as  evidence  of  great  human  antiquity.  It  may  be  added 
that  while  the  figurine  has  attracted  much  attention,  among  archeologists, 
several  (including  Professor*  Holmes)  refused  to  accept  it  even  as  pre- 
historic because  of  the  suggestion  of  classic  models  found  in  its  lineaments. 

In  short,  chapter  VIII  is  a tissue  of  error  and  MISREPRESENTA- 
TION; not  one  of  the  “indubitable”  instances  is  worthy  of  credence;  and 
its  publication  to  liie  world  as  an  exposition  of  American  science  is  an 
OFFENSE  TO  THE  NOSTRILS. 

Two  chapters  follow  on  “The  cause  of  the  glacial  period”  and 
“The  date  of  the  glacial  period;”  it  is  enough  to  say  that  they  are  of  a 
piece  with  the  earlier  chapter . 

The  work  ends  with  an  appendix  on  “Tertiary  man,”  by  Professor 
Henry  W.  Haynes,  which,  albeit  short  and  from  the  geologic  stand- 
point superficial,  is  a silver  lining  to  the  cloud. 

In  brief,  the  introductory  chapter  of  “Man  and  the  glacial  period”  is 
absurdly  fallacious ; the  chapter  on  existing  glaciers  is  redeemed  by  quo- 
tations, but  the  chapter  on  “glacial  motion”  is  DAMNED  by  error  and 
SPECIOUS  MISREPRESENTATION;  the  chapter  on  “pastglacia- 
tion”  is  crude,  unjust,  egotistic  and  a generation  behind  modern  science; 
the  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  chapters  contain  a large  body  of  information 
which  would  be  useful  if  properly  arranged,  but  the  arrangement  is  / 
unscientific,  unfair  to  American  geologists,  and  misleading  to  read- 
ers; the  eighth  chapter  purports  to  prove  that  man  existed  during  the 
glacial  period,  but  the  evidence  is  inconclusive,  and  only  proves,  first, 
that  the  author  is  incompetent  to  deal  with  geologic  phenomena,  and, 
second,  that  his  conception  of  geologic  history  is  feeble  and  hazy;  while 
of  the  concluding  chapters  it  must  be  said,  tritely  yet  truly,  that  noth- 
ing that  is  true  is  new,  and  nothing  that  is  new  is  true. 

It  would  be  charitable  to  allow  the  arraignment  of  the  work  to  end 
here  with  the  implication  that  the  author  in  his  ready  acceptance  of 


The  Nation  had  an  article;  accounts  were  extensively  published  in  Scrib- 
ner's Magazine  for  Feb.  1890,  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  for  April,  1891, 
and  in  other  prominent  papers.  It  seems  improbable  that  this  best  known 
geologist,  if  connected  with  the  United  States  Survey,  in  public  pay , at  a 
knave's  request,  permitted  such  a public  fraud  openly  confessed , if  indeed, 
this  “is  a fact”  and  not  another  mistake  of  Mr.  McGee’s. 


20 


untrustworthy  evidence  and  his  apparent  distortion  of  the  view  of  geol- 
ogists is  a simple  enthusiast,  A GULL  rather  than  a VULTURE  ; 
but  it  is  due  to  scientific  truth  to  point  out  EVIDENTLY  INTEN- 
TIONAL DECEPTION  on  the  title  page.  The  imposing  list  of  titles 
which  the  author  appends  to  his  name  conveys  the  impression  that  he  is  a 
geologist  rather  than  a theologian,  which  is  misleading  ; that  he  is  a pro- 
fessor of  geology,  (U)  which  is  not  true  ; and  that  he  is  an  “assistant  on 
the  United  States  Geological  Survey,”  which  is  SHEER  MENDACITY 
and  THEFT  OF  REPUTATION.  (V)  The  character  of  the  book  is  indi- 
cated by  the  many  errors  and  misstatements;  the  character  of  the 
author  must  be  gathered  from  the  inherent  evidence  of  his  incompe- 
tence, the  scores  of  misleading  statements,  and  the  apparently  DELIB- 
ERATE FALSIFICATION  of  facts  on  his  title  page. 


iv. 

The  two  treatises  have  much  in  common  ; both  represent  the  work  of 
the  HARPIES  by  which  the  work-shops  and  market-places  of  science 
are  haunted,  both  are  misleadingand  pernicious,  and  both  handicap 
science  and  hinder  the  progress  of  knowledge.  Yet  there  are  differ- 
ences between  them  : Doughty’s  work  is  confessedly  extra  scientific, 

or  infra  scientific,  and  hence  will  receive  little  attention  outside  of  the 
few  ill-trained  collectors  of  fantastic  objects  into  whose  hands  it  may  fall; 
while  Wright’s  work  represents  a stage  of  science,  albeit  a primitive 
stage,  and  will  thus  find  more  frequent  readers  am  I work  the  greater 
injury.  Again,  Doughty’s  pamphlet  is  privately  printed  and  thus 
bears  the  impress  of  Gilead,  while  Wright’s  book  is  issued  by  a reputa- 
ble house  as  one  of  an  international  scientific  series,  whereby  its  malefi- 
cence is  multiplied.  Furthermore,  Doughty’s  conclusions  are  disproved 
by  their  absurdity  ; but  some  of  Wright’s  conclusions  are  not  a 
priori  absurd,  and  their  falsity  can  only  be  shown  by  geologists  and 
anthropologists,  whom  it  behooves  to  caution  laymen  and  learners  against 
the  man  and  the  book.  Doughty  is  a simple-hearted  quack  whose  bread - 
pills  but  tickle  the  fancy  of  weakling  dupes;  Wright  is  a BET1NSELED 
CHARLATAN  whose  POTIONS  ARE  POISON.  Would  that  science 
might  be  well  rid  of  such  HARPIES,  especially  the  latter  ! 


(Note  U)  Mr.  McGee  mislaid  his  glasses  again.  The  title  page  reads: 
“Professor  in  Oberlin  Theological  Seminary,”  not  Geological  Seminary. 


(Note  V)  Large  words  again.  The  preface  is  dated  May  1, 1892.  The 
book  was  fully  printed  in  June.  Professor  Wright’s  official  connection 
with  the  United  States  was  ended  by  the  following  letter  : 

“ General  Record  United  States  Geological  Survey,  Office  of  the 
Director,  No.  1379,  July  11,  1892. 


r 


21 

Washington,  July  8,  1892. 

Mr.  George  F.  Wright,  Present: 

“Sir — On  the  recommendation  of  the  Director  your  services  as  an  Assis- 
tant Geologist  @ $5.00  per  diem  in  the  Geological  Survey  Temporary 
Force  are  hereby  dispensed  with  from  and  after  July  8,  1892. 

Respectfully, 

John  W.  Noble,  Secretary. 
Through  the  Director  of  Geological  Survey.” 


CONCLUSION. 


Mr.  McGee’s  last  comparison  of  Professor  Wright  to  the  harpies  brings 
Virgil’s  iEneid  to  mind.  The  eleventh  line  ends — 

“ Tantaene  aoimis  coelestibus  irae  ? ” 

“ Can  heavenly  natures  nourish  hate 
So  fierce,  so  blindly  passionate  ? ” 

In  Juno’s  case,  however,  jealousy  was  the  cause  of  anger. 

Yet  one  cannot  help  surprise  at  such  an  article. 

Why  did  Mr.  McGee  write  it  ? 

He  has  published  such  articles  in  several  papers  or  magazines.  Why  ? 

One  in  the  Literary  Northwest , for  February,  1893,  is  even  more 
inaccurate  than  the  foregoing,  if  possible  more  abusive — adding  to  his 
name,  to  add  to  the  abuse,  the  title  “ U.  S.  Geological  Survey.” 

The  title  of  the  article  is  “ A Geologic  Palimpsest.”  Not  seeing  at  once 
how  the  last  word  applied,  I referred  to  the  “Century”  and  found  the 
first  meaning  to  be  a “manuscript  written  upon  another.”  But  this  is 
a printed  review  upon  a printed  book.  A second  meaning  is  “a  monu- 
mental brass,”  and  I must  say  the  title  fits  the  paper. 

I am  the  more  inclined  to  believe  in  this  satire  of  Mr.  McGee  upon  him- 
self, because  in  the  same  article  in  the  Literary  Northwest , he  made 
his  finest  exhibition  of  wit. 

It  may  be  remembered  that  in  the  article  here  reprinted  he  gave  Pro- 
fessor Wright  a “Doughty”  companion,  intended  apparently  to  help 
McGee’s  abuse. 

In  the  Literary  Northwest , in  similar  manner,  he  gave,  as  a comrade, 
the  “late”  Capt.  Willard  Glazier,  who  claimed  to  have  discovered  the  source 


22 


of  the  Mississippi.  McGee  calls  him  “ Brazier”  a stroke  of  wit  in  which 
McGee  felt  such  pride  as  to  repeat  it  eight  times.  That  it  was  pure  wit, 
and  not  accident,  appears  b y the  context,  including  the  correct  name. 

Who  is  Mr.  McGee? 

How  did  he  come  to  be  in  a leading  position  on  the  U.  S.  Survey  ? 

Making  such  inexcusable  blunders  and  with  such  an  enormous  personal 
equation,  is  he  the  best  man  to  fill  up  the  reports  of  the  geological  survey? 

Is  it  any  part  of  his  business  to  use  the  weight  of  his  position — in  the 
service  and  pay  of  this  great  nation — in  branding  high  minded , learned,  and 
eminent  Christian  gentlemen  as  thieves,  robbers,  poisoners,  commercial 
swindlers,  falsifiers,  shysters,  betinseled  charlatans  and  harpies? 

When  Professor  Wright  had  given  years  to  glacial  geology  and  was 
becoaiing  eminent  as  a gentleman  of  modest  and  accurate  learning,  Mr. 
McGee  was  a land  surveyor. 

How  did  he  get  into  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey?  Was  it  a clerical 
blunder  taking  him  to  the  wrong  survey  ? If  he  was  in  the  land  office  in 
a subordinate  position  with  some  fat  man  over  him  who  could  sit  on  him 
occasionally  (or  perhaps  often),  he  might  be  useful  and  possibly  vastly 
safer  and  cheaper  to  the  American  people. 


C.  C.  BALDWIN. 


